Yesterday reviewing the model with Jonathan I figure out a design issue, the contributions for the activities if added to the contribution from Console's Retail spread would return then only the final value and not the separate contribution. To do so I need to have another instance that would hold the spread coming from Console using the cost ratios from activities and maintaining the original one from activities adding them further in other cube so the drill-trough would proceed backwards and show all the components of the contribution. Knowing this was pointless to keep changing the model with Jonathan since that would be an important issue I had to solve first.
Jonathan, Noel and Jennifer had a meeting this morning. Jennifer gave me a summary later in the day, basically where concerns about retail, ops and headoffice. Jonathan is not interested in analyse the flow from input to output, rather, using the drill-trough from Planning do a back-flow from the output cube to all contributions, that's fair to me. I'm going to build a diagram that holds the results of the process as reference, since the cubes now are so dam huge it's a pain in the butt trying to debug them as a whole.
This morning started with a meeting between Jennifer, Jose and I. Jose was contending that I hadn't delivered the requested files for him to start developing the journal routines. His "selective memory" seems to forgot that I've been behind his back the past three weeks asking him why he can't use the output file I delivered to him and that would be the same as would be now to start building that code, his observation was that he needs the flag to be there, ok I said, that's a column holding a "N", well but he needed the real stuff, ok then, but the real stuff for just building the loading routines? and then he replied about "not working twice" I said ok. And don't push that any further. In today's meeting he was like "Ken hadn't delivered me the file" I said: "I gave you the one of retail" he said: "the flag wasn't there nor the product and the customer", I said: "Well, the customer is there, you said everything you need was there, when asked about the product he said "I can pull that from the system I had what I need since the account is mapped to the product" he didn't said "That would amount to a lot o work to do". But well, I stop arguing because he wasn't going to admit that he could do it but he choosed not to, instead using me to buy time, go figure!! I should suspect that when he told me that if I can take that data for thursday when we talked the day before about friday.
Well looking that he really needs that, I'm going to push more over the top to complete the changes tonight and have the output for him tomorrow so he can start to work over the weekend. If he said that something else is missing then I'll know he was just trying to buy time at my expense.
I'm frustrated, he's a good person, no, I'll deliver that output next week. let him have his weekend free with his family.
The Human condition sucks.
2 comments:
I'll advise you to document every conversation you have with your team. Could be as simple as sending them an email with a summary and major points after every meeting so they won't be able to rely on the "selective memory" game.
He had done that a lot before. You were aware all hinted for him to play that game once you were near to completion as is custom.
Fix the design issue and document it. Then load the rest of the entities and generate the intermediate cubes. Then load that into a database and build a powerplay cube. Then show that to them.
Lets then to gather their own conclusion about the nature of it.
And take two happy pills, I can foresee a down coming your way.
Post a Comment